BALLB Sociology Institutions Sample Model Practice Question Answer
BALLB Sociology Institutions Sample Model Practice Question Answer Papers : In this post you will read about BA LLB notes for first semester , BA LLB study material ,sample question answer on topic social institutions covering topic marriage , family and kinship
INSTITUTIONS (BA LLB Notes)
BALLB Sociology Institutions Sample Model Practice Question Answer
Q. 1. Explain the definition, characteristics and importance institutions.
Ans. What is an Institutions? Different sociologists have offered different definitions of institution. Some of the major ones follows :
1. Maclver. “Institution is a definite organisation pursuing some specisic interest or pursuing general interests in a specific way.”
2. Bogardus. “A social institution is a structure of society that is organised to meet the needs of people chiefly through well established procedure.” .
3. Green. “An institution is the organisation of several folkways and mores (and most often but not necessarily laws) into a unit which serves a number of social function.”
4. Sumner. “An institution consists of a concept (idea, notion, doctrine or interests) and a structure.”
5. Woodward and Maxwell. “In sociological parlance, an institution is a net of folkways and mores that centre is the achievement of some human end or purpose.”
Characteristics of Institution (BALLB Question Answer)
It is evident form the forgoing definitions of institution that an institution has some definite aims by virtue of which it is beneficial to society – Institution is not only an organised from of racial customs, dogmas and rituals or methods. The following characteristics of institution further clarify the form of an institution :
1. Institution has some definite objectives.
2. There is a symbol of an institution which can be either material or non-material.
3. Every institution has some rules which must be compulsorily obeyed by individuals.
MARRIAGE (BA LLB Sociology Notes)
Q. 1. Define marriage and trade stages of its evolution.
Ans. Ever since the male and female came in close contact of each other upon this earth, there has been mutual attraction due to certain biological and psychological causes resulting in the establishment of intimate relationship. The mutual attraction of male and female is a biological and psychological fact. Psychologically, they have so many traits which are mutually complementary. These different traits make for their mutual attraction. From the biological viewpoint, the sexual intercourse between male and female is necessary for physical pleasure and satisfaction and the birth of the progeny. Therefore, whenever the male and female come, near each other it leads to certain forms of activities such as talking, roaming and having entertainment together. It also leads to mutual help in times of need. It is a common fact that
most of the males are spontaneously prepared to help the females in distress. The exchange of ideas further strengthens this relationship.
What is Marriage ?
But the above mentioned male-female relationship is not marriage. The sociologists and anthropologists have defined marriage specifically. Of these some of the more important definitions are as follows:
1. According to Westermarck marriage can be defined, “as a relation of one or more men to one or more women which is recognised by custom or law, and involves certain rights and duties both in the case of the parties entering the union and in the case of the children of it.” This definition includes polygamy and polyandry and lays emphasis upon the rights and duties resulting from the lies of marriage.
2. According to Jacobs and Stern, “Marriage is a term for social relationship is husband and wife or of plural males; also used for the ceremony of uniting marital partners.” According to this definition marriage is a ritual which unites the male and female in the form of husband and wife. This definition lays emphasis upon the ceremony in marriage.
3. According to Robert H. Lowie, “Marriage denotes those unequivocally sanctioned unions which persist beyond sexual satisfactions and thus come to underline family life.” This definition of marriage lays emphasis upon the fact that the institution of marriage is the result of actual relationship.
4. According to D.N. Majumdar and T.N. Madan, marriage may be defined by saying, “It involves the social sanction generally in the form of civil or religious ceremony authorising two persons of opposite sexes engage in sexual and other consequent and correlated socio-economic relations with one another.” This desinition on marriage lays emphasis upon its following characteristics :
(i) It is result of civil or religious ceremony.
(ii) It is a means of contact of persons of opposite sex.
(i) In it the male and female get the right of mutual relationship ; in economic, social and biological spheres.
The above definition of marriage may be summed up by saying, “Marriage is a more or less permanent association of one or more male with one or more female for the purpose of giving social sanction to progeny, satisfaction of biological and social needs and fulfilment of harma.” This wide based definition of marriage covers this instiļution it Sic found among Hindus, Muslims, Christians and tribals in India.
Evolution of Marriage
According to social anthropologists, sociologists and historians the institution of marriage in human society gradually evolved to it’s present stage starting from p
romiscuous relationship between male and female. In this stage of promiscuity, the male-female relationship were unrestrained and without control. According to the anthropologise Lewis Morgan, one finds exchange of wives, giving wives on loan and other such customs in very ancient primitive tribes which had no institution of marriage. Since there was no restriction upon sex relationships, the father was not much important in the family and most of the progeny was known by the mother. These findings of Morgan are more logical than historical. Morgan has pointed out that the institution of marriage evolved through several stages. Of these the most important stages are as follows:
1. Consanguineous marriage. This was the first stage in marriage institution. In this stage there was the prevalence of endogamy among blood relationships.
2. Group marriage. The second stage in the evolution of marriage was known as that of group marriage. As is clear by the nomenclature, in this system several males married several women as a group among whom equal relationships were not defined. However, there was restriction upon sex relationships with persons of the other group.
3. Syndesmian marriage. The third stage in the evolution of marriage was the pairing of the male and female which, however, was only temporary and not controlled by any rules and regulations. This pairing could be broken by the mere desire of anyone.
4. Patriarchal marriage. In this stage a male could marry several females who would live separate from each other. The custom of hypergamy and polygamy, which will be described later in this chapter belong to this stage in matriarchal societies.
5. Monogamy. In 20th century the institution of marriage in most of the realised societies reached the stage of present monogamous marriage. In this form of marriage usually one male marries one female at a time and lives with her until legal separation. In monogamy sex relationships among male and female are defined within the limits of marital bond and extra’ marital relationships are considered a sufficient basis for dissolution of marriage.
The above mentioned stages in the evolution of marriage have beca challenged by the famous anthropologist Westermarck. According to Westermarck the tradition of monogamy in human society is not a
matter of evolution. It has been borrowed from the animals and birds, The present form of marriage is not the result of gradual evolution in This institution but a change in moral principles occupied by males and female. The theory of Westermarck is criticised by the anthropologist Robert Brillall. According to Briffalt the scheme suggested by Morgan was more reasonable. Contemporary anthropologists do not accept either of the above mentioned views. According to D.N. Majumdar the customs of promiscuity and the premarital and extra marital relationships can not lead us to the conclusion that in the primitive societies promiscuity was the rule. Some thinkers have delined permissiveness with reference to other reasons. In India no examples ol promiscuity may be found in so many primitive tribes. Most of the Indian tribes believe in the custom of monogamy though one finds a vast variety of extra marital and pre-marital sex relationships. According to Lowie, promiscuity cannot be found in contemporary primitive tribes. According to D.N. Majumdar, the custom os monogamy is not natural to them. It is generally prevalent due to social and economic reasons and not moral or psychological reasons. The attempt to trace different stages in the evolution of marriage and its origin in promiscuity is worthless and cannot lead to any valuable conclusion. The historical researches can only show as to why and how a certain form of marriage originated in a particular society. On the basis of such historical material confined 10 particular human societies, il is not lair lo deduce a general scheme of evolution in the institution of marriage in all human societies. This view, concerning the evolution of marriage has been now generally accepted by sociologists and social anthropologists.
Marriage is an important social institution. Its form and function change according to change in culture. Hindu marriage is a religious sacrament in which a man and woman are bound in permanent relationship for the physical, social and spiritual purpose of sexual pleasure, procreation and observance of Dharma. The main forms of marriage arc endogamy, exogamy, hypergamy, polygamy, etc.
Q. 2. Write short not on (i) hypergamy (ii) Polygamy (iii) Polyandry.
Ans. (i) Hypergamy
Much importance is given to nobility in Bengali. So hypergamy became very popular there. Everyone desired to marry his daughters into the nobility but the supply of eligible noble bachelors was low. Among the Brahmins the contracting of such marriages became their occupation and livelihood. One noble Brahmin married off anywhere
from 30 to 100 girls. After marriage these girls continued to reside with their parents. The noble Brahmins migrated from their habitat in winter to earn money which would last them a year. In this connection Babu Abhaya Chandra has written that he knew two noble Brahmins of whom one had sixty and the other 100 wives. Each of these two had a notebook in which he wrote the names of the villages in which he has been married and alongside wrote the name of the fathers of his wives. Generally, it happened that father and son, and husband and wife met as strangers. Risley too has mentioned noble Bengalis the number of whose wives exceeded 50.
Westermarck has enumerated the following causes of polygamy in his History of Human marriage.
1, Enforced celibacy. In the uncivilized tribes men did not approach the women in their period of pregnancy and while the child was being breast-fed. Thus, due to this long period of enforced celibacy, a second marriage was contracted.
2. Earlier aging of the female. In the uncivilized tribes men remarried a number of times because the women aged earlier.
3. Variety. Upon being questioned as to the polygamy a Muslim of Morocco replied that a person cannot live for ever on a diet of fish. In this way the desire for variety is also a cause of polygamy.
4. More Children. A son has much utility in the uncivilized society, agriculture, war and conflicts, etc., where numerical superiority is an important factor. Secondly, in these tribes the birth rate is low while the rate of infantile morality is high. Hence, polygamy is indulged in order to obtain more children.
5. Social Prestige. The leaders of uncivilized tribes in Congo exaggerate the number of their wives in order to prove their superiority A single marriage is considered a sign of poverty. In this way where the number of spouses is accepted as a sign of prestige and prosperity, a custom of polygamy is natural,
6. Economic Necessity. In History of Human Marriage Westermarck writes that when a Zulu is asked why he has married a second time he is apt to reply that who will cook when my only wife, if she is the only one, falls ill? In this way one cause of polygamy is economic necessity. In the Himalayan tribes of India the men marry many times in order to increase their property and in order to obtain help in their agricultural activities. In this way they get a cheap and reliable labourer in the form of a wife.
There are many forms of polygamy, the main ones among them being the following:
1.Polygamy. In this one man marries many women. The above-mentioned causes are causes of this form of polygamy.
2.Bigamy. In this one man marries two women.
3. Polyandry. In this one woman marries many men and lives as
4. Group marriage. In this many young men and women are gathered together at some special occasion and married collectively.
The system of polygamy is still existing to some extent in most countries of the world. Previously, it was very popular everywhere. In the words of Rivers, “It is the commonest form of marriage everywhere. So far as we know, it is not universal but is the privilege of the powerful and rich.” It is found in China, Uganda, West Africa and Oceania.
Advantages of Polygamy. Polygamy is advantageous in the following respects :
1. Numerous and powerful offsprings. The practice gives a greater number of strong children because powerful men can beget children from more than one women.
2. Less corruption. Cases of sexual infidelity are few because the husband finds the desired variety in his numerous wives.
Disadvantages of polygamy. But more disadvantages than advantages are the outcome of polygamy. For this reason it is not considered good in any of the civilized societies. The following disadvantages derive from il :
1. The status of women suffers.
2. Jealousy, hatred, etc. among the women increase and the full development of their respective personalities is hindered.
3. The financial burden is much increased and the children cannot be brought up well.
The practice of polyandry is to be seen in many parts of the world. It is far less prevalent than polygyny.
Types of polyandry
Polyandry generally takes two forms, the following:
1.faternal polyandry. In this one woman is regarded as the wife hers who have sexual relations with her. The resulting children are
treatedd as the offspring of the eldest. This practice is found in Punjab. Malabar, Nilgin, Ladakh, Sikkim and Assam. It also exists in Tibet
2.Non-fraternal polyandry. In this one woman has many husbands with whom she cohabits in turn. It is not necessary that these husbands be brothers. If a child is born then any one husband is elected its social parent by a special ritual. This practice once prevailed among the way of Malabar but is now almost completely defunct.
Causes of Polyandry
Allhough polyandry depends to a large extent upon 1001 conditions yet its causes can,’ to some extent, be generalised. The following are these causes :
1. Shortage of women as compared with the number of men.
2. Extreme poverly_due to which one man cannot support even one wise.
3. Desire to limit the population.
4. The disutility of women in society from the economic viewpoint.
5. Desire to maintain the strength of_the_joint family.
Q. 3. Write short note on Endogamy.
Endogamy is the form of marriage in which one must marry within ones own caste or other group. This rule does not permit marriage of close kin. Endogamous marriage is that which is confined within group. As a matter of fact, endogamy and exogamy are relative words. That which is endogamous from one viewpoint is exogamous from another viewpoint. In the sub-caste exogamy of Hindus the marriage is contracted outside the sub-caste but the same marriage would be endogamous from the viewpoint of the race or nation.
In India, the following forms of endogamy are to be found:
1. Divisional or Tribal Endogamy. This is the endogamy in which no individual can marry outside his own tribe or division.
2, Caste Endogamy. In this form of endogamy marriage is contracted within the caste.
3. Class Endogamy. Class endogamy is that in which marriage can take place between people of only one class or of a particular status.
4.Sub-Caste Endogamy. This is the type of endogamy in which choice for marriage is restricted to the sub-caste.
5. Race Endogamy. Race endogamy is that in which one can marry in the race. People of the Veddah race never marry outside the race.
generally speaking, the following can be the causes of endogamy:
1.Policy of Separation. An important cause of endogamy is the
policy of separation meaning where by they will to live in separation
2.To Keep Wealth in the Group. When any woman of a group marries into another group, her children also belong to the other group and in this way the numerical force of the first group suffers.
3. Religious Differences. Generally, marriage between people of dissimilar religions is not considered desirable.
4. Racial or Cultural Differences. Racial exogamy does not take place due to racial and cultural differences.
5. Sense of Superiority or Inferiority. At the root of caste endogamy and racial endogamy is the sense of superiority of the inferiority of one group from another.
6. Geographic Separation. People who are separated by long distance naturally do not prefer to marry one another.
Roughly, the following are the main advantages derived from endogamy :
1. It tends to maintain the sense of unity within the group. 2. Women are happier within their own group. 3. Other people do not gain authority over the group’s wealth. 4. The business secrets of the group are kept intact.
5. Purity in the group is maintained.
☆ The following are the disadvantages from which endogamy suffers:
1. Endogamy shatters the national unity, because the nation is divided into small endogamous groups.
2. The scope for choice of a life partner is limited due to which malpractices such as unsuitable marriages, polygamy, dowry system, bride price, etc. are fostered.
3. it generates haired and jealousy for other groups. This is the main cause at the root of casteism in India.
In this way, at the present times, it has become necessary, both in the national and the international interest, that the endogamous marriages be made void. The unfortunate consequences of dowry and other similar institutions are to be seen. In the form of suicides committed by marriageable persons. Polygamy, unsuitable marriages and late marriages Icad to corruption in society. The one method of avoiding such consequences is to put a stop to endogamous marriages. These lies are being constantly broken by the effect of modern Western Education and civilization.
Q. 4. Write the impact of Westernization on the Institution of marriages.
Ans. Westernization of the institution of Marriage. Among social institutions, the institution of marriage has received maximum impact of West. Following are the crucial changes in this respect :
(i) Change of Basis. Now the marriage in India is not merely a sacrament but mutual love and married bliss constitute its basis.
(ii) Ritualist Change. Now the marriage in India is not merely a sacrament but mutual love and married bliss constitute its basis.
(iii) Freedom to Choose Partners. In the past the wishes of bride and bridegroom had no place in the scheme of marriage. It was an exclusive affair between parents but now boy and girl at least meet each other before marriage.
(iv) Eradication of Child Marriage. On account of the influence of the West there is a spread of education among girls and now there is a general realization that child marriage is detrimental to health. Due to these reasons there is almost eradication of child marriage from Hindu society.
(v) Marriage in mature age. Along with the eradication of child marriage there is a natural consequence of marriage occurring in mature age.
(vi) Admissibility of Divorce. According to Hindu tradition marriage is a sacrament which can come to an end only by the death os partner. Il could not be ended by divorce. Now under the influence of West divorce is available to Hindus.
(vii) Inter-Caste Marriage. Under influence of Western culture inter-caste and inter religion marriages are now possible. In the past such an act would have been visited by the punishment of excommunication.
(viii Monogamy. Under the influence of West monogamy has come to be accepted as the only natural slatc of marriage. According to Hindu Marriage Act 1955, no Hindu could enter into a marriage if his/her partner is alive.
(ix) Free Enjoyment. Under the influence of west there is a tendency among some cducated and rich persons to avoid the complication of marriage and lead a life of free sex. The number of men and women who do not wish to marry is growing. This is possible because sex outside marriage is available.
Q. 1. Critically discuss the main theories of the origin of family Ans.
Origin of Family Family, as an institution, is to be found even in the most primitive of man societies in the world. Since the earliest time in human history the family too has been constantly known. Thus the family is perpetual. There can be no question of its having originated. In the words of MacIver and Page, “The family has no origin in the sense that there ever existed a stage of human life from which the family was absent to another stage in which it emerged.” Yet there is much controversy and difference of opinion with regard to the question of the origin of the family. Some of important theories in this connection are as follows:
1. Theory of sex communism. According to some sociologists, in ancient times, any man or woman could establish sexual relations with any other man or woman. There was no restriction whatever on sexual relations. Such a stage is called the stage of Sex Communism. In order to prove this theory, the support of such customs of ancient tribes is involved which make it appear that in ancient times control over sexual relationship amounted to nothing. Many customs of this kind have been noticed by anthropologists studying occasions of festivity. Presenting wives and daughters to a guest for sexual gratification as a sign of hospitability, and exchange of women, etc. have been found practised in many ancient tribes. In many ancient tribes the father of the child is not ascertained. But in spite of sex relationships, incest has been forbidden in almost all tribes. Hence the theory of sex communism does not appear to be tenable.MO
2. Patriarchal theory. In ancient times it was Aristotle and Plato who supported the patriarchal theory while among its modern proponents Sir Henry Maine is notable. According to this theory, the family his its most ancient from was patriarchal in which the father was most powerful and the unequestionable_authority. In Rome, he was empowered even to the extent of sentencing his sons to death. He was called the patriarch.
This theory is defective in as much that it, too, cannot be applied to human societies because in many societies the mother instead of the
father, was the supreme authoritarian.
3. Matriarchal theory. Hence, on the other hand, some people
propounded the matriarchal theory of the origin of the family. Brille ult has supported this theory in this book The Mothers. Briffault has written that in ancient sociсties people were not aware that the offspring has relation with paternity. And in societies which practise promiscuity there” is no knowledge of who the father is. But the mother is known definitely anywhere. Consequently, it seems more reasonable to believe that the ancient family was matriarchal. The patriarchal family originated in these matriarchal families. The importance of the father increased with the progress of civilization and the development of agriculture.
The matriarchal theory is as much one-sided as the patriarchal theory because in different human societies one finds families of both kinds. MacIver has written that in the tribal society existing today, it is the patriarchal family which is to be seen. Hence Briffaull’s theory of the origination of the patriarchal form of the matriarchal family does not find universal application.
4. Theory of Monogamy. Westermark has propounded the theory of monogamy in his book History of Human Marriage. Among is supporters are Darwin, Zuckerman and Malinowsky. According to Darwin, the family originated in the male’s feeling of ownership and jealousy. In ancient society the powerful male wanted to possess individual ownership of the female and he succeeded in his design_by virtue of his physical power. Later on, this right of the male was normally accepted in society. Zuckerman and Malinowsky, with Westermark, agree to and support the fact that this same custom is found in semi-human societies and also among the apes who are believed to be man’s ancestors.
According to MacIver, the monogamic theory does not offer a complete explanation of the origin of the family. It cannot be accepted that the family originated in this manner everywhere.
5. Evolutionary theory. The American sociologists Morgan has put forward the evolutionary theory of the family. According to him the family has passed through the following five stages :
(i) Consanguine family. In this stage of the family, marriage between blood relations was not forbidden.
(ii) Punahtanl family. Evolving further, the next stage saw the imposition of restrictions on incestuous marriage and the family group arrived at the stage of the punaluant family. In this stage brothers of one family marry all the sisters of another family. Even in this stage sex relationships among themselves were not definite.
(iii) Syndasmian family. In this stage one man married one woman but the sex relationship of the women married into the family were not delined and certain.
(iv) Patriarchal family. In this stage man’s ascendancy and dominance in the family had fully blossomed. He could marry many women and have sexual relationships with them
(v) monogamous family. This is the present stage of the family. In this one man can marry only one woman at one time and one woman too, can marry one man at one time.
Evolution in the instilution of family can be believed but what cannot be believed is the same sequence of stages in Evolution of the family in all societies. Thus Morgan’s theory docs not appear to be correct in ils tactical form. Besides, there is no reason for believing the stage of the monogamous family to be the ultimate stage of the family. Actually, historical facts do not bear out Morgan’s theory, Morgan’s theory is hypothetical.
6. Multiple factor theory. According to many contemporary sociologists, the sequence of the evolution of family has been different in different societies. In the words of Ralph Union, “Sociсties have not followed a consistent line of evolution but a multitude of diverging lines.” In this way the modern sociologists accept the multiple factor theory of the origin of the family. Maciver and Page have written, “Rather a complex of human desires and conscious needs, finding different expressions in different environments, everywhere gave birth 10 some kind of family system.” In this way, many factors conspired in
the origin of the family.
According to Maclver, the various factors in the origin of the family can be analysed into three factors :
(i) Sex. This is a fundamental er innate tendency in man. The family originated in ļhe need for permanent means of its satisfaction and gratification.
(ii) Reproduction. The family originated in the strong desire for reproduction and the need for a permanent cooperation between man and woman for the nourishment of the offspring
(iii)Economic organisation. From the economic view-point, women and children depend upon the male. Consequently, a permanent institution of family was required.
Actually, it is difficult to make a definite assertion with regard to the truth of and the factors in the origin of an institution as complex
and as human as the family. This subject must be considered from a more comprehensive and more sympathetic view-point.
Q. 2. What are the forms of family? Distinguish between Matriarchal and Patriarchal family.
Forms of Family
Many forms of the family have been described, on the basis of different view points in sociology. Many distinctions in family have been based upon nature of residence, name of ancestry, power, dominance of mother or father, etc.
. 1. Distinction of family according to the nature of residence. The following distinctions of family are made according to the nature of residence :
(i) Matrilocal residence. In this kind of a family the husband goes to live in the home of the wise.
(ii) Patrilocal residence. In this kind of a family the wise goes and lives in the home of her husband. Now-a-days most families conform to this type.
(iii) Changing residence. At some places it is customary for the husband and wife lo alternate continuously between each other’s residences. One year the husband lives with the wife and next year the wise lives with the husband.
2. Distinguish of family on the basis of ancestry. The forms of the family are also classified on the basis of traditional ancestry. The main forms are :
(i) Matrilineal families. In these the mother is the basis of ancestry. The woman is believed to the prime ancestor of the family. Ancestral tradition and inheritance are effected through the mother. The rights of each member of the family depend on the relation to the mother; hence they are also known as the mother-right families.
(ii) Patrilineal families. In these families the ancestor of the family is the man and traditional ancestry continues through the father, Now-a-days this type of family is the most common.
3. Distinction of family on the basis of authority.
(a) Matriarchal families. In these the mother wields the authority. According to Maclver and Page, the actual administrative power is in masculine hand even in societies where the women folk are rulers. Hence, in their opinion, the word ‘matriarchal’ is misleading and should be replaced by the word ‘maternal Matriarchal families are to be found in the Nayar and Thiya castes of Kerala and Khasi and Garo tribes of, Assam in lndia:
(b) Patriarchal families. In these the entire authority is in the hands of the father. In ancient Rome and Greece, the patriarch used to be the absolute ruler.
4. Distinction of dominant parent. The following distinctions of – family are based on the dominance of mother or the father in family :
(a) Matmnymic. In these the name of the family of ancestry is the name of the mother, such as Gautami, Saumitra, etc.
(b) Patronymic. In these the family is named after the father. Warner has accepted the following two distinctions of family :
(i) Family of orientation. In which the individual is born,
(ii) Family of procreation. In which the individual marries and procreates.
5. Distinctions of family on the basis of marriage. On the basis of marriage also many distinctions of family have been made. The major forms among them are ::
(a) Polygamous or poigenous family. In this one man marries many women and lives in a family with his wife and children. dus(b) Berandrous family. In this one woman marries many men and lives in a family with all of them or with each of them alternately.
(c) Monogamous family. In this one man marries only one woman and establishes a family.
6. Distinctions based on size. (a) Immediate family. This consists only of the mother, father and their children.
(b) Conjugal family. In it the husband and wife live and also have sexual relations.
(c) Extended family. In this, besides the wife and husband other relatives also live.
(d) Consanguine family. In this live only those who are related in blood, such as brother, sister, father, son, etc. In the Nayar families of Malabar, the husband does not conduct his wife to his house after marriage and the daughter, though married, remains in her father’s house.
0. 3. What is family ? Describe its essential characteristics.
What is Family ?
What is family ? To know this it is necessary to know the various definitions given by different sociologists who have defined the family differently, according to their individual view-points. Some of the major definitions are :
1. Biesanz and Biesanz. “The family may be described as a woman
with a child, and a man to look after them.” In common parlance people sometimes interpret the word Family to mean a wife but it is evident from this definition that in sociology the child is an indispensable part of the family
2. Maclver and Page. “The family is a group defined by a sex. relationship sufficiently precise and enduring to provide for the procreation and upbring of children.” In this way a temporary alliance between a man and woman for sexual gratification cannot be said to constitute a family. In order to constitute a family the sex relationship should necessarily be permanent and definite, enough to allow for the procreation of children and to allow for an appropriate arrangement for their upbringing.
3. Clare. “By family we mean a system of relationships_existing between parents and children.” In this way, the family is a system of relationships, as a part of society. The family does not mean a place or location but is rather a web of mutual relations between the family members in the same way in which the meaning of society lies not in its being a group of human beings but in being a web of relations between them. Characteristics of Family
Some idea of essential characteristics of the family must have been conveyed by a persual of these various definitions. These essential characteristics of the family are the following: –
1. Permanent relations between husband and wife. The family is constituted of the husband and wife and their children. Thus, a permanent relation to some kind between man and women is the main characteristics of the family. Marital relations in different countries may be more or less permanent but the relations between man and woman have some degree of permanency in all cultures. Without this, neither can the children be brought up nor can there be any family. Even in societies where polygamy and polyandry are customary, the husband-wife relationship does possess some degree of permanency.
2. Permanent sexual relationship. The family rests on permanent marital relationship because one more object it is the establishment of permanent sexual relationship. Without marriage, there can be no family even though there may be sexual relations. When the marital relations break up, as in the case of divorce, the family disintegrates. Proper upbringing of children can be expected only when there are permanent conjungal relations.
3. Attachment of blood relations. Another necessary characteristics of the family is the existence of blood relationship among the members. These blood relationships can be real as well as imaginary. The members of the family are generally the decendents of the same ancestors. The relation between adopted children and their parents is accepted as legal but blood relationship means no more than that among the members of a family there should exist an attachment of the degree of blood relationship. It is generally believed to be necessary that there should exist no blood relationship between husband and wife.
4. Financial provisions for the sustenance of the members. In a family there is financial provision for the upkeep of its members, senile folk, children, women folk etc. The earning members of the family arrange for the sustenance of the other members. In this way the members of the family are enmeshed in the lies of duties and rights. In different cultures the burden of earninig may sall on different members. At some places the women go out to work while the men do the domestic chores by the principle that there should be a provision in the family for the sustenance of its members is accepted almost everywhere.
5. Common habitation. If the members of a family reside at disserent places, it would be difficult to call them a family in spite of there being blood and other relationships. It is a different matter for a member to leave temporally or for the entire family to change its habitat but generally all the members of a family live in one residence be it one room or an entire place, renicd or the ancestral home of the family. In the nomadic people also the members of one family stay together at one place.,
6. Nomenclature. Among the essential characteristics of the family it is a distinct nomenclature which serves to identify the family.
In this way, the family is a group of individuals in which men and women have the permanent sex relations of husband and wife, which is distinguished by a name, in which there is adequate financial provision for the sustenance of its members, in which there is the attachment of blood relations, among the members and who live in common habitat.
Q. 4. What is the function of the ‘Family’ in society. Describe its major forms.
Ans. : Functions of the Family
Different sociologists have classified the functions of family differently. Ogburn and Nimkoff havę divided family functions into six categories: 1. Affectional function, 2. Economic function, 3. Recreational function.
Groves classified family function in the following manner : 1. Prolcction and care of the young, 2. Regulation and control of sex impulses, 3. Conservation and transmission of the social heritage, 4. Provision of opportunity for the most intimate contacts.
Read had attributed the following functions to the family : 1. Race perpetuation. 2. Socialization, 3. Regulation and satisfaction of sex needs, 4. Economic functions. Major Functions of the Family
From the foregoing definitions of family functions it is evident. that the main functions of the family are of two types :
A. Basic and Universal, and B. Traditional. A. Basic and Universal Functions of the Family
1. Biological Functions. The most fundamental biological functions are :
(i) Reproduction. According to the Hindu Shastras procreation is the main function of the family. Commentators on the Hindu Shastras have written that the religious activities of man cannot be consummated unless he has a son and he cannot repay his ancestral debt. He has to suffer in held is he has no son. In almost all societies of the word barren women are the objects of scorn and derision. And in some societies marriage ability is attributed only to a woman who gives evidence of her fertility by conceiving a child before marriage. Hindu Shastras permit a second marriage if there is no issue from the first wise. The woman conceives a child from another man through ‘niyoga’ if the husband is impotent or otherwise incapable of procreation. In most human societies of the world the child is believed to the nucleus in the population of the country. Some Hindu thinkers have considered reproduction to be the sole aim of marriage. In the rituals of Hindu marriage the groom says to bride that.I accept you in order to obtain good offspring.
(ii) Procuring of food, housing and clothing. Food, housing and clothing are indispensable to the existence of human life. A major biological function of the family is the procuring of these amenities for its members. The earning members of the family provided food and clothing for all the rest. Every family has a house to live in and the food for the family members is generally cooked at home.4. Psychological functions. The second fundamental and universal functions of the family are psychological, Ogburn has included affectional Functions in the necessary or vital functions of the family. Accroding to groves it is the function of the family to provide opportunities the establishment of intimate relations. Burgess and Locke have written
“Mutual affection is becoming the essential basis of marriage and the family.” This provides security in the family. The relations between man and woman in the family are not exclusively physical. Profound conjugal affection for each other is generated in husband and wife by working together in the family and by sharing other’s joys and sorrows. An all round development of the individual is not possible in the absence of family love. The family has an important role especially in the development of the child’s personality. Ralph Union has written that merely the satisfaction of bodily needs is not sufficient for the proper development of the infant. Children are in greater need of individual attention, love and satisfaction of response.
3. Satisfaction of Sexual needs. The fundamental function of the family, according to Reed, is to regulate and gratify sexual needs. Manu accepts sexual satisfaction besides reproduction as the aim of family. Vatsyayan also looks upon sexual satisfaction as the primary objective of the family. In the modern age, if the fulfilment of sexual need remains unsatisfied in the family it starts disintegrating. To quote Havelock Ellis, “With failure of sexual harmony, the marriage structure rests on shifting sands.”
4. Protection and care of the young. According to Groves the protection and care of children is one necessary functions of the family. The human child is the most helpless and weak being. A family is needed in order to maintain its existence and to ensure its coordinated and balanced development. Its balanced development is achieved with difficult without the care of the parents and other family members.
B. Traditional Functions of the Family
The following are the traditional functions of the family: 1. Economic functions. The family performs many economic functions also, some of which are the following: bio
(i) Division of Labour. The work is divided among the members of the family according to their status and role. The male members generally do the work which requires out of door movements. The women generally take care of the domestic chores while the children undertake only such work as can assist in their development. While this division of labour prevents putting excessive burden on the shoulders of one individual it ensures the systematic performance of the family activities. All people undertake responsibility and work co-operatively,
(ü) Provision for income. Money is needed for such of the family requirements as food, cloth, habitation, etc. The family is the centre of
economic activities, consumption, etc. The family makes arrangements for income in an effort to fulfil the needs of the family.members.
(iii) Organization and care of Properly. Most families possess some property in the form of a house, farm, jewellery, money, etc. The family looks after its property and in case such a contingency arises il also equitably distributes it among the members. The family is the judge of what property an individual shall receive, and who shall look after the property and how, and other important questions.
2. Social functions. The social functions of the family are important since the family is the fundamental and primary unit of society. The following among many social functions deserve mention :
(i) To establish status. An important function of the family is the determination of an individual’s status in the society. The modes of earning wealth of an individual are also generally determined by the family.
(ii) Socialization. The family imparts learning to the individual on all those subjects whereby he can become an ideal member of society. It carries out the socialization of the individual. It acquaints him with the various modes of conduct in eating, conversing, coexisting, etc
(iii) Social control. Another function of the family is to exercise social control over the individual. The prevalent moral norms are enforced upon the individuals and their conduct and thoughts are controlled so that the order in society may remain intact. In the family the antisocial tendencies of the individual are watched.
(iv) The accumulation and transmission of social heritage. The family keeps the social heritage intact and hands it over to the generations to come. As a result, the social traditions, customs and ideals, etc. are transmitted continuously from one generation to the next.
(V) Assistance in the choice of a life partner. The family renders assistance to the individual in his choice of a life partner. Although in the modern age, people have started preferring personal choice in a life partner yet in India even now in most cases the choice of the bride or the groom is still the province of the other-family members.
3. Religious functions. In the Hindus Shastras, Family life has been considered the basis of the fulfilment of religious duties. The T Shastras prescribe the wife as essential in the fulfillment of duty, the
literal meaning of the Hindi equivalent of the word ‘wife’ means the is woman who accompanies the man in the performance of the religious
rituals, which were consider incomplete in the absence of the wife. besides this, the performance of religious activties also required the
presence of a son: Thus, in the ancient Hindu system the main function, of the family was the fulfillment of duties. Living in the family the members fulfilled their religious duties. Now, the religious activities of the family have been materially reduced.
4. Cultural functions. The family keeps the culture of society alive. It moulds its members according to social culture. The children are educated in the various aspects of culture from their infancy. The family creates such an environment for them that they learn to live and to behave in accordance with their culture. The senile members of the family impart education in matters of conduct, taking religion and ethics, etc. to children
5. Recreational functions. The family provides entertainment for its members. The love between husband and wife, the halting utterances of the children, the scoldings and preachings of the elders and other such occurrences serve to create an atmosphere in which every one can find an object which can interest him or her.
Q.5. Explain how family is the primary and fundamental unit of society.
Family and Society 1. First Institution. Family is the first institution in the history of man. In the ancient age men lived in small families, which lacked any kind of organisation or permanence. But they served to fulfil simple biological and psychological needs. Generally the family consisted of husband and wife and their offspring. The powerful men possessed many wives and thus they lived in big families with their wives and children. When man became oriented in agriculture, many families formed a group and stayed permanently at some place for farming. When these people started partaking of each other’s pain and happiness as neighborly gestures, social relations increased and in this way many families formed a community and the next step was the creation of nation, In this way family is that primary group which slowly developed into human nation.
2. Fundamental Unit. Family is a fundamental unit of human society. Its foundations is upon man’s biological and psychological needs. In the modern age many functions of the family have shifted to other institutions but, nevertheless, there are many biological and psychological needs which man cannot satiate without a family Havelock Ellis, in this penetrative essays, has shown that the importance of a mother’s milk for the child cannot be obtained in any other manner. Psychologists have proved that the absence of family affection has a serious impact
upon the child’s development. Sexual passions can be satisfied even Outside the family but it can never be the source of emotional fulfilment. That ‘man is a social animal implies that man cannot live without a family. Thus family is a fundamental unit of society,
3. Nuclear Situation. The family has a nuclear situation in human society. In primitive societies the entire organisation is based on family units while the division of labour in society is also based on the family. In the complex structure which is society today, the family has lost some of its importance, but even today, the activities of most members are in the family or contiguous to it. It is seen that people work and labour more for the comfort of their wives, children and other members of family than even for personal comforts. Thus even now the family is the nucleus of a major part of man’s activities.
4. Organisation of society depends upon family. Proper social organisation depends upon proper organisation of families. If the families disintegrate in some society, then the society will never be safe. One major cause of social disorganization is family disorganization. Families develop the character of the members of society. Freud and other psychologists have proved that a child, when a man, exhibits the same character and mental tendencies which he acquires in the family. In the opinion of Adler, a man’s role in the family determines his role in society.
5. Family socializes the individual. In this way, a person is socialised in the family. Desining family, Merrill writes, “Family is an enduring association of parent and offspring whose primary functions are the socialization of the child and the satisfaction of the members.” According to Dewey and Tufts, the family is a social agency for the education and protection of the race. It is in the family that the child acquires such important qualities as sincerity, sympathy, self-submission and realising responsibility, etc. It is the character developed in the family which helps the child in becoming an important and responsible member of society. Wright was quite correct in stating that in every family, the child gets an opportunity for free expression of thoughts and developing his entire personality. Psychologists have incontestably proved that the proper development of child is impossible without a good environment in the family. The tendencies and habits which he acquires in the Family, he finds impossible to shed latter on. According to Freud, the view-point of a child towards the senior in the family determines his attitude and view-point towards the elders in society. The child’s first school is his home and family. According to Prof.
Collingwood, the child’s education should be in the hands of the parents in family. The parents should participate in all the child’s activities. A child learns much by imitating his superiors. Mahatma Gandhi and such thinkers paid personal attention to the development of their children. It is the family which imparts practical education to the child concerning the customs in society, conduct, other important elements of culture, preservation of health, Tove, sympathy, cooperation etc.
It is evident from the above account that family is the primary and fundamental unit. Confucius remarked quite correctly that if you want to improve society, improve its families. Society will improve automatically when the families improve.
6. Conveyor of traditions. The family moulds the character and personality of ihe individual. It is through the family that society imparts its culture to the individual. Thus, the family is very important in the form of socializing agency. In the essay, The Family Conveyance of Tradition, Paul Schreker wrote that a particular function of the family is to sanction children. Like marriage, the institutions of family is constituted by different elements of culture. It is due to this reason that it has religious, judicial, political, artistic and linguistic aspects. Whenever a new thought impresses itself upon an age the family takes a new form from it in order that the upbringing and mental tendencies may be harmonious to that thought. Politics and law were dominant in Rome, so įhe family organisation there was such as to censure the upbringing of children in harmony with the culture. Today the economic order is predominating. So the family has changed its form, it makes the mental tendencies concur with the new culture. In this way, the family makes the individual harmonious with the culture of society. In the family, the
child acquires knowledge about the current customs, mores, traditions, etc.
7.Social Control. A social life is a web of relationship. In order to maintain these relations properly a system of rights and duties is organised which will avoid any conflict between the members of society and allow them to develop as complements to each other. In order to avoid any breach of this harmony betwecn the individuals in society, the society applies numerous kind of control on the individual. They are taught to obey their elder, have sympathy for the young and for shers A strict control over sex relationships is necessary for maintaining this mercial order, otherwise disintegration will spread over the complex social life of to-day. Relationships between men and women will lose their solidarity illegitimate children will be born with no one to look
after them. Although the anthropologist Mead and Malinowski have
discovered societies where control over sex relations is inordinately lax without disturbing the social order but such an order is completely contradictory to the thinking of today’s culture person. It is the family which does this work of controlling sex passions for society. In all cultures, the families exercise some degree of control over the unmarried members till they attain the matrimonial state. In the same way, the family acts as a preventive to the individual in keeping him from bad habits and crime like drinking, theft, etc. Not many parents would like their children to embark on careers of crime. Even the worst person tries to prevent his children from adopting similar habits and consequently any objectionable behaviour on the part of children is punished and landable: efforts suitable rewarded. They thus drop bad habits and learn good things. In this way the making of a good citizen in society depends upon the parents.
8. Mother tongue. In every society the culture, conduct and values. are very strongly related to the language spoken. Literature is the mirror of culture in society and literature is based on language which plays by no means a mean part in man’s socialization. The credit for the complex order of human society must go to man’s linguistic superiority over other animals and the language one picks up in the family. Human children brought up by animals in the forest are seen completely ignorant in matters of language. They communicate their wishes by signs in animal language, walk on all fours, eat raw meat and exhibit the least signs of humanity. A child brought up in an animal family grows like an animal as a child brought up in a human family grows into a human being. To go even further, a child developing in a cultured family is cultured while one brought up in baser circumstances is coarse. The child is first taught language in the family as his mother tongue through the medium of which he exchanges his thoughts. If some Indian child is brought up in some English family English will become his mother tongue. Thus, the major element in the child’s socialization in the form of language comes to him in his mother’s lap.
Thus, in brief, the family educates the individual in culture, conduct, behaviour, custom, tradition, religion, laws of thinking, ideals, values, occupations, obedience of duties and proper use of authority, etc. It would be no exaggeration to say that the family is the most important institution in man’s moral development.
Q. 6. What agencies are performing function of family in modern times?
Ans. Agencies Performing The Functions of the Family
1. Maternity Hospital. In the modern age the functions of the family are changing. Women go to hospital some days in advance of the delivery. They remain for some time in the hospital after the child has been delivered. Actually, much benefit derives from this system. In this the mother and the child are constantly in the care of expert physicians and if there is difficulty in delivery, operations can be performed without delay. There can be neither the facilities of medicine nor the arrangement for operation in the family. This creates much travail and the lack of these facilities can even be a danger to the life of the mother or child in certain cases. Once cause of the increase in the use of the maternity hospital for child delivery is the disintegration of the joint family. In the present time the newly wedded people live separately from their families. At the time of delivery there is no old and experienced woman near them who could give them proper advice and could take the so small that it becomes difficult to accommodate relatives. Under these conditions the easiest course to follow is to confine the pregnant woman to a maternity hospital or a delivery home to avoid all kinds of worries and dangers.
2. Women Hospitals. In the modern age of specialization there are specialists for every kind of disease. Nowadays one can secure specialists in the peculiarly feminine diseases in all big towns and cities. Thus, it is they who treat the women for their diseases. Previously this work was done in the family, being performed most incompletely and dangerously.
3. Baby clinics. Nowadays, in addition to the treatment of women, there are doctors who specialize in the treatment of children. Previously,
the more common infantile diseases were treated at home but now this – is donc in the baby clinic. In this way much of the responsibility for
the care and treatment of the diseased is on the doctor’s shoulders. But this does not mean that this activity has been completely taken away from the family.
4. Creches and Children Parks. Creches and children parks are being developed in modern progressive countries. Employed women who work in factories leave their bottle-feeding children at the creches where educated women look after them, feed them at the proper time, and keep occupied with toys, etc. Institutions of this kind have developed very much in modern countries, particularly in the U.S.S.R.
Similarly, in the Western countries, Montessori schools, nurseries and children parks have been developed for children between three and six years of age. In these, every care is taken of the children. The Burber of nurseries and creches in India is very small.
5. Baby sitters. In the Western countries much of the chores of caring and upbringing children has been taken up by baby-sitters, in addition to the creches and nurseries. These baby-sitters are generally female. Their duty is to keep the children busy and for this they receive payment by the hour. In America when a woman has to go out of the house on an important mission on which it is inconvenient to take children, she leaves them with the baby-sitters.
6. Public Aid. Previously, one of the fundamental functions of the family was carrying for and assisting the old, the invalid and unemployed, and such like. Now-a-days in many European countries the government undertakes to assist the old, helpless, unemployed people and orphaned children. There is a similar system in Canada and America also. Women who work in factories get paid leave along with free medical facilities. Everywhere the government assist the old people and the orphans, through the media of pension and insurance. In many countries an extra allowance is paid by the government for this kind of assistance as in Russia, Sweden, Germany and Italy.
In this way, many institutions render assistance to the family in the performance of its duties. Hotels and restaurants provided food and rest while the picture houses and clubs provide the recreation. In this way these institutions share much of the family’s work. But these can never replace the family, they can only replace its efforts. :
Q. 7. Write a note on disorganisation of modern family.
The modern family is gradually becoming increasingly disorganized. Some signs of this phenomenon can be seen in following changes in the family :
1. Lack of family unity. Now-a-days the agreement in objectives, ambitions, thoughts and ideals in the family is at an end or tending in that direction. Men, women, boys and girls each have their own ideals, their own plans, individual programmes and individual thoughts, in which they brook no interference whatever. In this way, even while living together, eating and moving together no one is concerned with another. The house, becomes almost a hotel where the husband and wife are employed a similar distance is seen to exist between them.
2. Decrease in family control. In modern times the control of the family over its members in continually decreasing. No one wants to be
lectured by anybody else. The younger generation finds a bitterness in the wisdom of its predecessors. They do not want to be controlled by them in any sphere. They want to be separated from the family immediately after they start earning or after they are married. In this way, the disorganisation of the family is obvious.
3. Strife. The strife within the family is presently on the increase because of the absence of family control as well as the absence of a sense of unity among the members. Joint family are rapidly becoming disorganised: Violence, litigation, etc., are common enough occurrences, Faith in one another is decreasing. There are many separate families within one house. The disorganisation of the family is only too evident
4. Laxity in martial bonds. The tie of marriage is the basis of family. Weakening of marriage ties results in weakening of family ties. Nowadays marriage is no longer in religious ritual but merely a social contract which can easily be concealed or annulled on ground of boredom or some kind of misunderstanding. Consequently, there is a constant increase in the number of divorce. A major cause of the weakening of marriage ties is the failure of men to adopt to new circumstances created by the education of women. Previously, women were completely dependent upon their husbands. Now being educated, they also earn as much as their husbands or at least possess the capacity to do so. They have come to recognise their rights. They want to be equal of the men in every aspect of life. They now demand the same fidelity which their men demand of them. When the men do not want to have women on an equal footing with themselves the result is a conflict due to which the family tends to become disorganised
5. Conflict between parents and children. Now-a-days a important element indicative of family disorganisation is the conflict between parents and children. The control of the people our young men and women is constantly decreasing. They do not want to be ordered by their parents in their behaviour, marriage, society etc. Consequently the misunderstanding between the two parties increases and the family becomes further disorganised.
6. Lack of Protection. As a result of conflict between husband and wife and parents and children, psychological security is being continually diminished due to which mutual trust is decreasing and the family organisation is being shattered
It is obvious from the above mentioned causes that the family is being rapidly disorganized in the modern age. The families are becoming
smaller. The number of divorces is increasing. Mutual intimacy and faith are being reduced and their place has been taken by selfishness and frivolity.
Q. 8. Discuss the changing role of the family.
Changes in Modern Family In the modern period, the institution of family is undergoing rapid change and modification. The main changes, in this connection, are the following:
1. Reduction in the economic functions of life. In the modern age, many of the economic functions which were previously being performed by the family, are now being performed by the schools, factories, government and other associations.
2. Reduction in other activities of the family. Many of the other functions of the family have now been taken over by other agencies. The work of looking after and bringing up children is now being performed in creches, children parks, kindergarten schools and by baby sitters. Hospitals undertake the work of delivering children and of treatment. Restaurants prepare food for thousands of families.
3. Increase in family recreation. Modern families have been transformed into centres of recreation with the invention of radio and television, and the advent of indoor games.
4. Laxity in marital and sex relationship. The rigidity traditionally associated with marital and sexual relationships no longer characterises the modern family.
5. Change in relationship of men and women. Now that the women have gained equal rights with men, their mutual relationship have undergone much change. Mower has correctly written of the modern woman, “She is no longer the slave of older days.”
6. Increase in importance of children. In the modern family the importance of children has increased. They are now physically maltreated or punished only rarely but are instead taught lovingly. The modern families tend to become filiocentric families. We
7. Decrease in importance of blood relationships. In the modern family there has been a continuous decrease in the importance of blood relationships. The family is now constituted of a husband, a wife and their children. For
8. Disorganisation of joint family. The modern family is no longer
joint. The joint family is rapidly being disorganised.
9. Smaller family. Due to the prolific use of contraceptives
the tendency to regard children as an obstacle in the progress and enjoyment of life, the birth rate is continuously telling and the modern families are becoming smaller. . 10. Family disorganisation. The process of disorganisation is quite apparent in the modern family. The number of divorces is one the increase. The control which the family exercises over the individual is being lessened.
11. Instability. The modern family is no longer a permanent association. It is precarious and can be rendered void any time. Marriage has been reduced to a mere social contract which it is not difficult to break in the event of even the slightest function. According to Maclver the modern family, in comparison with the ancient and medieval families, is very weak and unstable.
Q. 9. What are the new problems confronting family. What are its causes ? What is the future of the family ?
Ans. New Problems Confronting the Family
In this way the modern family is beset with many new problems, the major among which now follow :
1. Problem of adjustment of the husband-wife relationship. In the modern family the most difficult problem is that of the mutual adjustment of husband and wise. The educated and enlightened woman of today wants to be the equal of her husband in every sphere of life. But the husbands have not yet adjusted to this situation. Hence a conflict between the two is inevitable. Laxity in sexual relations and the instability . of marital relations also tend to create conflict between the husband and wife and to spoil their relationship.
2. Problem of sexual adjustment. The modern family is also faced with the problem of sexual adjustment, it being the outcome of changes in sex values. D.H. Lawrence, among the Western authors, has presented a graphic and revealing sketch of this problem in this novels. Psychoanalytic literature has also adversely assected the ancient ideals of sex relationship. Today much importance is attached to the gratification of sexual desires. Some people have gone so far as to declare variety in sex relationship-not only desirable but necessary. This tends to encourage premarital and extra-marital sex relationship. All the factors have the effect of creating sexual disharmony between husband and wife and as a result numerous families are disorganized.
3. Marriages based on romantic love. The third major problem
dist confronts the family is that of marriages being based on romantic
love. After marriages of this nature when the dreams of the husband and wise do not materialise in the family they are seriously frustrated. They start blaming each other and either live on a state of perpetual strife or break the ties of marriage. Elliott and Merill, in their book Social Disorganisation, have described divorces as the inevitable consequence of romantic marriages.
4. Problem of broken marriage. A major problem faced by the modern family is an increase in the number of broken marriages. Marriages have been reduced to a mere social contract. Materialism, individualism, rationalism are the causes of paucity of such feelings as benevolence, love etc, Greater stress is laid on sexual pleasure. The women are far less dependent upon men. The laws of divorce are also not very stringent. All these causes have the cumulative effect of increasing the number of divorces.
5. Problem of working women. Now-a-days there are more women who are employed outside the precincts of the home. They consequently do not get sufficient time to look after their children. Returning exhausted from their work they do not have the energy lest to attend to their husband or their children. This hinders the development of children and increases conflict and misunderstanding between husband and wise.
6. Laxity in family control. A major problem has been created for the modern family by the decrease in the control exercised by the family over its members. This has undermined the administration of the family. Boy-girl, husband-wise, brother-sister each wants to pursue his own course and does not relish any interference, be it advice or be it rebuke.
7. Family conflict and strife. Changes in the values of life and a reduction of the family control in the modern family have led to increased conflict between husband and wise as well as between parents and children. This conflict is usually not apparent but it does disturb the peace of the family, destroy the faith in one another and remove the sense of psychological security.
8. Lower birth rate. The birth rate is falling constantly due to late marriages, frequent use of contraceptives and a tendency to consider children a burden. This tends to accentuate the instability of the family since the absence of children reduces the sense of responsibility in the husband and wife, besides preventing intimate family relations. Causes of the Instability of Modern Family
The modern family is unstable. An increase in the number of desertions, separations and divorces, etc., are a proof of this.
The main causes of this instability are the following:
1. Less social protection in family crises. Previously, a family
crisis of the nature of a maladjustment between husband and wife was overcome by the constraining influence of the elders, kinsmen and social mores and traditions and the family was saved from disintegration but with the existing loss of respect for the power of these modes of social control the husband and wife are deprived of any guide or mediator and in a fit of temper or even vengeance they destroy the delicately and lovingly nurtured sapling which is the family, no matter how much remorse they may experience when they have cooled down. Previously, being financially dependent upon the husband the wife silently bore much injustice and did not dare think in terms of a separation. Now, the women who are capable of earning their livelihood marry only for love and when that is not forthcoming there is almost nothing to deter them from dissolving their marriage. At some places extreme laxity of divorce laws has led to very great instability and impermanence of the family.
2. Replacement of domination by cooperation. According to Maclver and Page, the basis of husband-wife relationship in the family is no longer domination but cooperation. Previously, everywhere, be it the East or the West, the wife was dominated by the husband and hence the family stability survived despite the husband’s relationship. But with the removal of this dominance, in the modern time, the stability of the family can be maintained only by benevolence, sympathy and cooperation. Generally it is not easy to create these qualities. Hence, the instability of the modern family.
3. Industrialism. In the modern Industrial system women and children work in factories alongwith the men. This reduces the unity of the family and increases disorganisation.
4. Ideals of romantic love. Modern marriages are based on the ideals of the romantic love. When the dreams of the two partners do not materialize in the family, conflict increase and is gradually transformed into enmity.
5. Hedonism. Modern civilization is hedonistic. In this, people pay more attention to their rights than to their duties. This increases selfishness and the occasions for conflict.
6. Individualism. Modern civilization is also individualistic. No one wants to consider the interests of the family. Everyone is engaged in the consideration of solely his own interest. No one is prepared to
sacrifice his smallest interest to benefit another, as a result of this, conflict in the family increases.
7. Lack of control in sexual relationship. Another consequence of inodern civilization is a change in the values concerning sex. This tends to diminish control in sex relationships, to reduce fidelity in marital relations and also to increase chances for family disorganisation.
Future of Modern Family
This has led some people to doubt whether the family will escape the present crisis in the highly industralised and mechanised societies of the West. Will the family survive to continue in the form of a primary association ? What will be the future of the family ? Actually, there can never be any doubts concerning the continued existence of the family since its basis is the fundamental needs of beings. It would be no exaggeration to say that the family assuredly exists in whatever varied or transformed form, as long as the human society exists. The desire for procreation is a natural desire in men. Outside the family there can neither be any legal offspring nor any proper arrangement for its upbringing. Some or the other kind of marriage system and a family are needed to afford a permanent means for the gratification of the sexual impulses of men and women. The family satisfies not merely the physiological needs of the male and female but also their psychological needs, the desire to love and to be loved, the sense of psychological security etc. The family exercises the control of society upon the individual. The family creates an environment in which the child can be brought up to develop fully his personality and to become an ideal citizen. MacIver has written that many studies have revealed that among people aged more than thirty, the death rate among the unmarried men and women is twice than that of the married women and men. Among people who dic as a result of tuberculosis, accidents, suicides, alcoholic indulgences and sexual diseases, the proportion of unmarried is greater than that of the married. In the words of Truxall and Merrill, “Mutual affection guards against many of the mental and physical tribulations ol a complicated society.” This is clearly indicative of the benefits which accrue to men from the institution of family. Actually, the family.is a primary and fundamental unit of society. It is the foundation of all social life. It socializes the individual and assists him in the choice and selection of a life partner. It determines inheritance and procures property. It is difficult to describe all the direct and indirect benefits of the family. It is an inseparable part of human nature. It is the Foundation of the social structure. Hence, in the words of Burgess and
Locke, “….It seems safe to predict that the family will survive, both because of the importance of its functions of affection giving and receiving in personal satisfaction and in personality development.”
Q. 10. Define joint family and discuss its advantages, and disadvantages.
Joint Family is a group of kind of several generations, ruled by head, in which there is joint residence, hearth and property and whose members are bound with each other by mutual obligations. The chief characteristics of the joint family are common residence, common kitchen, joint property, common worship, rule of the pater familia and consciousness of mutual obligation among family members. This will be clear from the following definitions of joint family :
1. Karve – “A joint family is a group of people who generally live under one roof, who eat food cooked at one earth, who hold proper in common and who participate in common worship and are related each other as some particular type of kindred,
2. Jolly– “Not only parents and children, brothers and step-brother live on the common property, but it may sometimes include ascendants, descendants and collaterals upto many generations.”
3. I. P. Desai – “We call that household a joint family which has greater generation depth (i.c., three or more) than the nuclear family and the members of which are related to one another by proper income and mutual rights and obligations.” Advantages of Joint Family
The chief advantages of joint family are as follows:
1. Economic Advantages – The joint family system has proved be a very advantageous institution from the economic view point. It prevents property from being divided. Land is protected from extreme sub-division and fragmentation. When divided into many small piece land becomes an uneconomic holding. Besides keeping the land intact, the joint family also assists in economic production. In a joint agriculturist family the male members do such work as furrowing, sowing and irrigation, Women assist at the harvest. Children graze the cattle and collect fuel and manure. In this way, the co-operation of all the members helps to save money which would otherwise be paid to a labourer. In the rural area, the joint families are such in which men, women and children collaborate. Even among the middle and upper classes the family can obtain capital and reliable assistants from the joint family for establishing and expanding a business.
2. Protection of Members – Praising the joint family system Jawahar Lal Nehru has said that the system of joint family is an insurance for the family members which has carried a guarantee for those who are mentally the physically weak. In times of crises the joint family can provide assistance to the children, the women, the old, the insane, the widows and the helpless. The joint family is capable of providing much assistance at such emergencies’ as pregnancy, sickness, etc. If a person dies, his wife and children are looked after properly in the joint family. In the joint family a place is provided for all members to which they can retreat at all times and their honour, wealth and prosperity are protected collectively.
3. Means of Recreation – The joint family is one of the best means of recreation. A stimulating atmosphere is created by the cumulative effect of the standard talking of the children, love between brother and sister, mother’s love, the reproach of the elder and the fun and frolic of the other family members. In this way, the joint family also naturally takes over the role of a rich.
4. Development of Good Qualities – In this way the joint family system makes possible the ideal development of the good qualities of man. In the care of elders the undesirable and antisocial tendencies of the young are checked, they are prevented from straying from their path and they learn to exercise self-control. In the joint family, young men and women learn the lesson of generosity, patience, service, cooperation and obedience. A sense of sacrifice replaces selfishness learn to obey family control and to respect those older than themselves.
5. Co-operation and Economy – The joint family fosters co-operation and economy to an extent achieved by few, if any, other institutions. A sense of cultural unity and an associational feeling exists among the members. There can be much economy in expenditure. The joint family can be rightly called an ideal centre of co-operation and mutual aid.
6. Socialism in Wealth – According to Sir Henry Maine the joint family is like a corporation the trustee of which is the father, He is known as Karta. About him D. N. Majumdar has written, “The Karta of the joint or extended family has the right to make the decision for his family, he is the working head, he is judge and the jury, he decides family quarrels, he is the political head as every family has a place and
the local Gram Panchayat.” According to Jather and Bery, everyone in a joint family earns according capabilities but obtains according to his needs and in this way to a
large extent achieves the socialistic ideal : from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.
Disadvantagus. of Joint Family
The following are the main disadvantages of the joint family system:
1. Hindrance in the Development of Personality — Thc most glaring defect of the joint family system is the hindrance in the development of the personalities of its members. In the joint the head is the absolute ruler. He is usually the oldest member of the family who looks upon and treats men and women as children even when they attain adulthood. In this way there is very little opportunity for the fostering of individual autonomy or self-dependence.
2. Low Status of Women – The bad condition of women is also a major defect in its disintegration. In the joint family, the daughter-in-law does not get an opportunity to develop her personality. She looks after her children. She hardly ever meets her husband during the day and even he returns late at night he gratifies his sexual desire with her and falls asleep. The invariable presence of other family member shames the brides, they do not receive love from any source. There is no limit to the injustice done by the mother-in-law and the other relatives do everything to add to that suffering. In some cases this oppression is so inhuman and unbearable that women become fed up and commit suicide. Any natural love between the husband and wife or between the mother and children is prevented from blossoming by these artificial circumstances.
3.Strife – If the daughters-in-law contradict this oppression or if their husbands choose to speak in their favour, the house becomes strife
born and a centre of conflict. When the daughters-in-law talk back to 2 their mother-in-law they are abused and even beaten by their husbands or who are provoked by their mother. Harted and jealousy between the
wives of brothers can lead to a conflict between brothers which can assume dangerous proportions. There is continuous strife and lighting over the doing of children. Much of the time of the adult members is consumed in the solution of petty problems.
4. Laziness – Due to common responsibility many people take their minds off their work and become completed lazy. In this state, the condition of those who literally break their lacks and those who are very lazy is more or less the same. Hencé laziness is encouraged. When a person can eat comfortably without exerting himself he is Gunlikely to indulge in any strenuous activity. And the wives of the hard
working people tell them to desist from such toil as they do not benefit from it. Mostly, in the joint family it happens that some people have to exhaust themselves while others lead a life of utter lethargy. There is no dearth of such people in big and rich joint families whose entire routine in life consists of eating, sleeping and begetting children.
5. Uncontrolled Reproduction – In a joint family the responsibility for the upbringing and education, etc., of children is shared. Thus, no individual considers il necessary to lay stress on controlling procreating. In the family, no distinction in the status of the family members is made on the basis of their respective earnings and the corresponding number of children. The offspring of the family members is made on the basis of their respective earnings and the corresponding number of children. The offspring of one member will be treated on the same footing as others irrespective of the high level of his earnings and the fewer children. In this way in a joint family no direct benefit accrues to any individual by family planning or by earning more. Consequently, the enthusiasm of the people in this direction loses much of its servour and intensity, and they become lazy and procreate more.
B. Poverty – As a consequence of almost daily strife, the bad condition of women, absolute rule, lack of responsibility and blind procreation, the economic condition of the joint family becomes very unenviable. If the conflict is strong enough to bring about division of land property, the condition becomes even worse. The property of the family, being jointly owned, is sometimes allowed to go waste and it is gradually lost through constant neglect.
7. Other Defects-In addition to the afore-mentioned major shortcomings the joint family system is further blemished by many other minor defects. Family strife leads to litigation. Customs and traditions are strictly adhered to in the joint family and superstition regions supreme because the guiding hand is that of the oldest member. Due to the strict administration of the old men the younger people do not gain sell-confidence and self-dependence, and they Tail to adopt new currents of though. Thus the disadvantages of the joint family far outweigh the advantages which accrue from it and have negatived them consequently, the joint family is in fact, becoming. disorganised. It is impossible to save the institution of joint family from disorganization, though its advantages can, with effort be reinstituted in novel from in the small families.
Q. 1. Discuss the meaning and kinds of kinship.
Kinship While defining Kinship, Charles Winick has written in The Dictionary of Anthropology, “Kinship system may include socially recognised relationship based on supposed as well as actual genealogical ties.” In this way kinship included not only the descendants but also all those persons who are tied together by social relations. Levy Strauss has therefore called it arbitrary system of ideas. Adopted sons and daughters are also regarded as kin, although they have no blood-relation of any kind.
In defining kinship, Dr. D.N. Majumdar has said, “In all societies people are bound together in groups by various kinds of bonds. The most universal and the most basic of these bonds is that which is based on reproduction, an inherent human drive, and is called kinship.” The desire to have children gives birth to two kinds of bonds. One is husband and wise and the bond among their kins and the other is father and mother and a bond among their children. The first kind of bond is created by social and legal definition of marriage and is therefore called affinál kinship and the individuals connected to it can be called affinal kins having no blood relation among them. The second kind of bond is that of blood relation found in parents and their children and even among sisters and brothers. Kinds of Kinship
From the point of descent there are two kinds of kinship which are given below :
1. Affinal Kinship. It includes wife and husband and their new relations resulting from that marital relation. The kinship is the result of marriage.
2. Consanguineous kinship. It includes the parents and their children, of a biological origin or adopted. Among primitive societies, if the role of a father in the birth of a child is unknown, the wise’s husband is accepted as father of the child.
According to the range of kinship it can be divided into the föllowing three categories :
1. Primary kinship. In includes wise and husband, parents and their children who are directly related to one another.
2. Secondary kinship. It includes those kins who are related to the primary kins of an individual, such as a step-mother, brother, brother-in-law and sister-in-law.
3. Tertiary kinship. It includes the primary kins of the secondary kinship. The order of kinship established mutual behaviour pattern in society like the joking relationship between a man and his wife’s sister and brother. Hoebel’s View
Hoebel has defined family group. According to him a family group a wide and one-sided group comprising a common ancestor and his successors having blood ties and it does not last for more than five or six generations. In this way a family group is a group of successors of one and the same ancestor. In a modern family, members of both the families, father’s family and mother’s family, are included in a family group. It has therefore been called a bilateral grouping. But, as has been said before, family groups in primitive societies are one sided. Their groups may be matrialineal and also patrilineal.
1. Matrilineal kinship. In this; a family group starts from a female ancestress. Children of a brother are excluded from the family but the children of a sister are included in the family group. This family group is found in a matrilineal system.
2. Patrilineal kinship. In our society, we have a family group of this type. In this, the children of a sister are excluded from the family and the children of a brother are included in one and the same family. In counting the lineage of a family unit, father’s father and his father are counted. On the other hand, in a matrilincal samily, mother’s mother and her mother alone are counted.
Beside the matrilineal and patrilineal kinships, cognale kinships and collateral kinships are also found. Congnates are those who make a lincage from father to a son in a straight line. When other relations, like uncle and nephew, maternal uncle and his sons, are included in considering the lineage of a family, they are called collaterals as they are not in a straight line. Parallel Cousins
All the father’s brother’s children and father’s sister’s children, mother’s brother’s children and mother’s sister’s children are included among parallel cousins. Parallel cousins are of two kinds :
1. Cross Cousins. These include thc children of father’s sisters and the childrea of mother’s brothers. In Gond, Kharia, Kadar, Oaron,
Khas and some other primitive tribes of India, marriages among parallel cousins are allowed. But such marriages are allowed in certain circumstances or on certain conditions.”
2. Parallel Cousins. They include all the cousins sisters and brothers as mentioned above and marriages among them are allowed in certain circumstances.
Q. 2. Explain the meaning of avoidance and joking relationship.
Ans. A particular form of kinship behaviour is known as avoidance. In this behaviour, as is clear by the nomenclature, a person avoids meeting, seeing, sitting or talking to another. Such avoidance is almost universal in tribal kinship relationships. The following are some important forms of avoidance relationships.
1. Daughter in law and parents in law avoidance – In the Yokadhir tribe the daughter in law cannot show her face to her father in law or elder brother of her husband. She cannot directly speak to them nor can she stand in their company or change clothes in their presence. Thus she keeps her face covered before them.
2. Son-in-law and mother-in-law avoidance – Just as one finds the custom of avoidance of father in law by the daughter in law, similarly in some tribes the son in law avoids any type of contact and relationship with mother in law. In some tribes the son in law cannot talk to his father in law as well. If he has to convey some thing to his in laws he gesticulates and makes signs but never speaks.
3. Brother-sister or sibling avoidance – This type of avoidance is found in Yokadhir tribe. One cannot talk anything he likes to the brothers, sisters and even cousins. They cannot change clothes before each other, nor can they be nude in the presence of others.
In Andaman tribes a man cannot directly speak to his younger brother’s wisc. He can do so only through some intermediary. On the other hand, there is no restriction upon the contact or communication between a man and his elder brother’s wife. In Malenesia the brother and sister cannot meet each others. Among Trobirands is the brother per chance happens to observe his sister making love to some man, all the three have to commit suicide. Causes of Avoidance
Psychologists and anthropologists have tried to discover reasons behind avoidance behaviour. Of these, the most important are as follows:
1. Opinion of Tylor — According to Tylor, avoidance is particularly due to matriarchal system. In some tribes, after marriage, the bridegroom
says in the family of the wife. Since he has no definite status in the family, he is avoided, Alter procreation his status becomes some what more definite and better. In the words of R.K. Lowie; “Avoidance by the husband of the wife’s family is in some way connected with his living with them, and vice-versa as to the wise and the husband’s family. In other words, matri-localism goes with son in law avoidance, patrilocal with daughter in law avoidance.” Tylor’s view however, is not applicable everywhere. In some tribes, avoidance is not due to location. For example, Zuni and Hopi are matriarchal, and yet they have no such custom. Again, Tylor’s theory does not explain the reason of avoidance among heterosexual relatives. Again, in some societies, both the type of avoidance are sound. However, pointing out to the importance of Tylor’s view Lowie has said, “But Tylor’s cross cultural approach remains valid. Whatever may be the explanation, the amazing parallels between the cultures of distant people cannot be ignored and with proper caution we are right in seeking possible correlates.”
2. Opinion of Frazer – According to James Frazer, avoidance is due to sexual reasons. He based his theory particularly upon the brother sister avoidance in Vedda of Ceylone and the inhabitants of Trobriand island. Among Vedda people, the brother and sister cannot live under the same roof nor can they eat together. According to Frazer this avoidance is for checking sexual relationship among hetro-sexual relationships. However, Tylor’s theory does not explain the cause of avoidance among some sexes.
3. Opinion of Freud — Like Frazer, Sigmund Freud has also explained avoidance with reference to sex relationship. His theory is known as Psycho-analytical theory. According to it sex motivation is normal among persons of opposite sex. The rules of avoidance try to solve this problem. The avoidance of mother in law and son in law relationship is due to the possibility that due to attraction towards his bride, the son in law may be attracted to the mother in law or such a feeling may develop in the mother in law for the son in law. Since the daughter lives with the mother for so many years, she has natural attachment to her. This leads to rivalry since both the son in law and the mother crave for her love. This rivalry leads to avoidance. Freud’s View cannot explain avoidance everywhere, particularly among same Sexes.
4. Opinion of Lowie — According to Lowie both in laws have
different cultural and social values. It is possible that the mores of wife’s side may be different from the mores of the son in law’s side. In the matriarchal family, the bridegroom is different from other members of the family since he comes from the other family. Hence he is avoided. Similarly, in a patriarchal family the daughter in law is avoided.
5. Opinion of Turney High – Turney High has explained avoidance in terms of conflicts. According to him it is the best method to achieve a harmonious relationship. In a family the status of the daughter in law is peculiar. She has to serve the in laws in the family. Therefore, she cannot understand proper relationship leading to conflict with the in-laws. Avoidance is an attempt to solve the problem of this conflict.
6. Opinion of Radcliffe Brown – According to Radcliffe Brown the main cause of avoidance is social. Love and hate are natural among members of two different families. Hatred is harmful for the organisation of family. Avoidance is a cure for this conflict. Presenting this same fact in another way, Chappie and Coon have pointed out that avoidance lessens interaction. Joking Relationship
Joking relationships are apposed to avoidance relationship. These includes relationships of elder brother’s wife and the younger brother of her husband, brother in law and sister in law, nephew and Aunt etc. Joking is mostly between relationships based upon matrimony and not upon blood relationships. Among Oraon’s joking is so much effective that sometimes the grand father marries the grand daughter. Joking relationships of brother in law and sister in law are the most popular. Sex relationships among them are equally wide spread. In almost all the socictics there are joking relationships among younger brother of a person and his wife. Sexual relationships again, among them are most widely prevalent. Among primitive societies, joking are found among maternal aunt and her nephew. Among Hopi and Trobrianders, it is so much prevalent that it even leads to sex relationship.
According to Radcliffe Brown, joking relationships show friendship Chappie and Coon maintain that inking is a means to maximum interaction. It also finishes or diminishes conflicts. According Lowic joking is a psychological tendency among potential mates.
Q. 1. What are the economic institutions of capitalism? Analyse their social results with special reference to India?
Institutions of Capitalism The major economic institutions of capitalism are private property, large scale production, money and credit, business organisation, profit, – wages, competition, price mechanism, etc.;
1. Private property. According to Seligman, “The institution of private property lies at the basis of modern economic life.” Private property is the basis of capitalism. In capitalism, every person reserves the right to maintain private property and aigrettes it lo any extent. The right to private property is considered a sacred right in which no one can interfere. Accordingly, the millionaires of the capitalist states have property worth millions. Originally, no one could come into possession of such vast sums of money due to agriculture dominated business. Industrial revolutions popularised gigantic machines by means of which a person, with a small train of assistants, could carry on agriculture on a big farm. But the basis of capitalistic private property is modern industry which, due to machines, gives more importance to capital than to labour and the capitalists started making unlimited profits exploitating the labourers.
2. Large scale production. In this way, it is large scale production which has made possible the recent development in the institution of private property. Factories accommodating thousands use electric or steam power. International trade was encouraged by the development of the means of transport and communications. It became possible to send good to any part of the world. Countries came closer to each other and fulfilled the needs of each other. The occurrence of new inventions everyday led to an increase in the quantity of production and factories producing new commodities were set up. Thus, large scale production is an important institution of capitalism.
3. Money and Credit. With the success of large scale production in the development of capitalism, the institution of credit has become important. Thus people got money on loan from the banks on their credit. Business and industry developed. Thus, despite a lack of capital, the people in the capitalist order increased private property on the basis of credit
4. Business Organisation. The third important institution of capitalism is big business organisations and corporations. In these the capital of numerous shareholders is pooled and industrial or business concerns set up. This reduces the risk of the share holders of the company. Business and industrial organisations can avoid competition and increase profit.
5. Profit Institution. The investors have enjoyed an increase in their profits due to large scale production and business organisations, Such activities like production, exchange and consumption have increased in the economic order. the capitalist invests money, the labourers do the production. Salesmen and traders bring the commodities into the market and only then do they reach the consumer. In the process, salesmen and traders-make huge profits. In this order, with the increase in the importance of capital, capitalists exploit labourers as they pocket the major share of the profit. Actually, as Marx has proved, capitalists cannot even exist in the since of the institution of profit.
6. The Wage Institution. In this way, using the law of supply and demand, capitalist started haggling the labourer. The objective was to pay less wages to the labourer and to take more work out of him. Wherever the labourers organised, they forced the capitalist to pay adequate wages but more usually the capitalist takes advantage of the helpless state of the labourer and extracts his share in the form of surplus profits.
7. Competition. Thus competition is the inevitable result of a capitalist economy. There is extreme competition and aggression , between milliowner and milliowner, salesman and salesman. In order
to increase the price of commodities, thousands of tons of foodgrains is dumped into the sea. Demand is artificially increased. Advertisements are in the hot of things. In this cut-throat competition, the interests of country and humanity are discarded in the lace of personal and vested interests.
8. Price Mechanism. Thus, in capitalism the price of commodity is determined not by its cost of production or utility but by law of demand and supply. People concentrate their production upon commodities which are in greater demand and short supply in order to make large profits. But an increase in production again increases Supply.
Social Results of Capitalism
Good social results of Capitalism
A detailed review of the results of capitalism will help in its moral, evaluation. Some results of capitalism are good, others bad and harmful. The good results are as follows :
1.High standard of living. Capitalism increased the production of things. Necessities were easily available. This raised the standard of as évinced by the average standard of living in the U.S.A.
2, Economic progress. Capitalism led to economic progress. Due to economic freedom people exerted themselves to the limit for earning wealth. A tendency towards more efforts replaced fatalism, unemployment decreased and the consequence of a constant increase in business and industry was the economic progress of the country.
3. Exchange of Culture and Civilization. Capitalism was instrumental in increasing large scale production and business which, in its turn, increased international trade and the means of transport and communication. People inculcated in different cultures and civilizations came into contact with each other with the result that culture and civilization were exchanged.
4. Increase in the sense of co-operation. Capitalism caused in increase in specialisation in business and industry. This involved the need of increased cooperation because it became impossible for one to progress without another. Co-operation helped to decrease the sense of differences based on race, creed, nationality and caste..
5. Economic freedom. In the view of the supporters of capitalism its most momentous social result is economic freedom. In this order even an ordinary person can become a millionaire, by dint of personal effort, and progress in life as far as he may wish. Bad social results of Capitalism
But, nevertheless, capitalism has proved a curse to humanity instead of a blessing. Its bad consequences far outweigh its good ones of which the major ones follow :
1. Class Struggle. Class struggle is the worst social consequence of capitalism. Capitalism created a big gulf between person and person on the basis of economic situation or financial status. In order to serve the economic interests of capitalists and middle class people, the labourers were exploited to the extreme. If the capitalists do not resort to exploitation then how can they argument their wealths by leaps and bounds ? This way the capitalists and labourers are involved in an
unceasing struggle and conflict. Lockouts, strikes and other such means disturb the run of social life. Obviously, capitalist increases the immorality in the lives of group and the individuals.
2. External economic inequality. In a capitalist order, an intense economic inequality between the different classes of society is apparent. As a consequence, a wide difference in their living and opportuhities for progress is obvious. In capitalism, the rich become richer and the poor proper. In this way, the gull of economic inequality is widening. And this inequality in society is a great obstacle to the moral development of the individual.
3.Unemployment. A capitalist tries to make a maximum use of mechanical appliances in industry thus reducing the demand of labour. The advent of one machine sometimes spells the unemployment of as many as fifty to a hundred people. An unemployed persons cannot effect his own development and cannot pursue his moral ideals.
4. Social disorganisation. In capitalist order are established big factories in which many labourers work at minimum wages. These people live in dirty slums. Poverty instigates crime and prostitution. An increase in poverty helps to make the life of people degenerate. Social life cannot be organised in the face of terrible poverty, extreme class differences, unemployment and extreme economic inequality. Its structure may seem imposing and glorious from outside but its foundations are continually being weakened. Freedom in capitalism give rise to exploitation. There is not even a sign of brotherhood. Proper order and synthesis are mere fancies in the absence of economic equality. Actually, capitalism is bad both for the exploited as well as the exploiters. It bțings the moral degeneration of both.
Q. 1, Give a brief account of the Political Institutions on the basis of Arthashastra.
Ans. About the origin of the state Kautilya has not said anything explicity. But incidentally he makes a remark which leads us to say that he accepted the social contract theory. In the course of a dialogue he tells us that the state originated when people got weary of the law of the fish (matsyanyaya). They selected Manu to be their king. It was settled that the king should receive one-sixth of the grain and one-tenth
of the merchandise and of gold as his due share. This revenue enabled the king to ensure the security and well-being of the subjects.
Elements of sovereignty
Kautilya nowhere exactly defines the state or sovereignty, but he frankly adopts the time honoured seven elements. Like human body, the body-politic is supposed to possess various limbs (angas). Every element is supposed to be at par in importance to others: but their importance depends upon the achievements obtained by them. There in some difference in the nature of various elements, though their exists no difference in their number which was seven. Kautilya states these elements as, swamin (king), amatyas (ministers), janaraai (territory), durga (forts), koslm (ticasun), dunda (royal septic) and mitra (allies). Manu, on the other hand, mentions swarrin (king), amatya (ministers), puram (forts), rashtra (territory), kosha (treasury), danda (force) and shudra (allies).
Even a glance at the Arthashastra will convince any one that Kautilya was a strong advocate of monarchy. As a matter of fact he keenly desired to establish the rule of a strong and powerful king over the country. But the Arthashastra also mentions other kinds of states as well, e.g., Dvairajya, (Do-rajjini) and the Republics. The Arthashastra referring to the former says : Rule of a country by two kings perishes owing to mutual hatred, partiality and rivalry. Divided rule between father and son or between two brothers has similar consequences and is under the clutches of a minister.
Full one chapter of the Arthashastra has been devoted to the Samghas and the imperial policy towards them. They were still important although a decline had set in owing to the large monarchies and Alexander’s invasion. Kautilya has divided Samghas into two types : (1) Vartasastropajivinah, i.e., living by trade, agriculture and military profession, and (2) Rajasabdopajivinah, i.e., living by the title of Raja or king. Under the former type, he mentions (i) the Kambojas, (ii) the Saurashtras, (iii) the Kshatriyas, and (iv) the Srcnis and others. Among the latter type the enumerates: (i) the Lichchhavikas, (ii) the Vrijikas, (üi) the Mallahas, (iv) the Madrákas, (v) the Kukaras, (vi) the Kurus, (vii) the Panchalas and others.
Kautilya laid down the imperial policy towards the republics in these words : ‘Those which are united in a large) should be treated with the policy of subsidy and peace, for they are invincible. Those which are not united should be conquered by army and disunion, thus
the monarch should behave towards the Samghas. Misra comments :
The very existence of these republics was incompatible with the imperialistic designs and centralised monarchical constitution of Kautilya. The Indian Machiavelli proceeded with the task of annexing the republics with a grim resolve … Kautilya excels in unscrupulousness, ingenious devices, and most shocking and preserve means, which he invented and used for the one end of sowing dissension among the republics. He lays down the crooks! doctrine thus : ‘Spies gaining access to all the corporations (republics) and finding out jealousy, hatred and other causes of quarrel among them should sow the seeds of a well-planned dissension among them.’ His aim was to make his master the sole monarch of all the republics. Ends and Functions of the State
The state as described by Kautilya in the Arthashastra merely a police state. The ends of the state according to him are not merely the maintenance of peace and order or protection of the people, but to enable the individual to attain highest self-development with the help of the state.
While discussing the four traditional sciences, he expresses view about their ends, which imply the ends of the State as well. His view may briefly be slated here : Agriculture, cattle-breeding and trade constitute Varta. It is most useful in that it brings in grains, cattle, gold, forest produce and free labour. It is by means of the treasury and the army obtained solely through Varla that the king hold under his control both his and enemy’s party. The people consisting of four castes and four orders of religious life, when governed by the king, with his scepter, keep to their respective paths. Hence, the three other sciences are dependent for their well-being on the science of government. Danda, punishment, alone can procure safety and security of life. Thus, the main functions of the State are as follows :
Protection. It means guarding the country both against internal troubles as well as foreign aggression. Of all the ancient writers, Kautilya was most alive to these twin dangers facing the State, as is evident from the elaborate rules which he formulated concerning the calamities that might overtake a sovereign country. Obviously, the socio-economic sectors, both public and private, needed protection from the state. The state tried to meet the challenge of the day. Kautilya, therefore, laid down a number of ways and means to protect the people, and also their property and occupations from twin dangers of internal and external aggressions.
Maintaining Common Law. The state was expected to maintain the common law as embodied in the ancient customs and usages of the land. In order to facilitate the state in conducting the functions of the judiciary, Kautilya has divided legal disputes and problems under several titles, which include economic problems relating to non-payment of debts, deposit and pledge, sale without ownership, concern among partners, non-payment of wages, non-performance of agreements, recession of sale and purchase, disputes between the employer and the employee, adultery, etc. A king was expected to investigate and settle himself or through learned Brahmanas the mentioned matters in conformity to the sacred law.
Upholding Social Order. The third function of the state was the protection of the dharma of the land, within the sphere of which both the state and the society moved. According to Kautilya, the duty of the king consists in protecting his subjects with justice, as its observance leads him to heaven. A king upsetting the social order would prove the vanity of the royal scepter (danda). Evidently, the king during Mauryan period tried to keep and regulate the vocational and professional traits assigned to the people of various varnas, guaranteeing, to a great extent, the freedom from the state of occupational chaos.
Promotion of People’s Welfare. The Hindu king knew the ideal, that in the happiness of his subjects was hidden his happiness, and in their welfare his welfare. Whatever pleased him was not considered as good, but whatever pleased his subjects was considered as good for hi. Similar sentiments are voiced in the great epic Mahabharata too. For his unjust acts, the king was to be punished with a line equaling to a thousand times of what it was otherwise recommended. Government
Important aspects of government and administration) have been discussed in the succeeding section. Here we shall give only the main features of government as follows:
(1) Financial System. The sources of finance are as many as could be devised by human ingenuity.
(2) Control of Trade. The state should regulate trade, commerce, manufacture, labour, etc. The state should also conduct mining operations and manufactures.
(3) Conduct and Salary of Officials. Official conduct is governed by certain rules and regulations and almost all the officers are paid Cash Salaries. Moreover, everyone have to discharge bis official duties
properly in order that the prestige and reputation of the government may not suffer.
(4) Foreign Policy. External relations of the state, i.e., with other states have been visualised and systematised. All the external powers are divided into three categories those that are alies, those that are enemies and those that are neutrals. Six-fold policy and manala theory. ‘Such are the broad outlines of the state envisaged by the
the Arthashastra. It was in first place
characterised by a comprehensiveness that had a double aspect. Internally it sought to comprehend and control the whole social life, externally, it aimed at the sovereignty of the whole of India. It sought to promote true religion…to regulate the age and conditions under which one might announce the world. The state should see that husband and wife, father and son, brother and sister, uncle and nephew, teacher and pupil are faithful to one another, and do not play each other false, state itself should provide support to the poor, the pregnant women, to their new offspring, to orphans, to the aged, the infirm, afflicted and the helpless.’ The different ways of marriage are down as well as the ways of separation, subsequent marriages even of teaching manners to refractory women.
As for the second aspect, the external relations of the state have been made the object of a careful scrutiny and the surrounding these are divided into the three groups and the six-fold policy is prescribed to be followed. Almost half of the Arthashastra has been devoted to the treatment of this topic. One other aspect of Kautilya is his attitude towards morals and religion. For, the state as envisaged in the Arthashastra subordinates moral principles to the necessities of its own existence and welfare, and the same attitude is assumed towards religion. To the end of good government and political welfare, even thing is a means and hence every means is justifiable. Thus. Kautilya contemplates a state, that is very comprehensive in scope and comparatively catholic in spirit.
Q. 2. Discuss the organic theory of the State.
Ans. Organic theory of the State. Briefly stated, the organic theory of the state holds that the state, like an organism, consists of a number of parts. Although these parts have some measure of separateness, they are nevertheless interdependent. Each organ is concerned with a special function of the organism and superiority may often be dependent upon a particular condition of the moment. The Hindu organic theory of the state is based largely upon the seven clements of the state (Rajya). Although authorities diner, the usual lists include: the ruler or sovereign
(svamin), the minister (amatya), the territory of the state and its people (Rashtra or Janapada), the fortified city or capital city or capital (durga), the treasury of the king (kosha), the army (danda), friends and allies (mitra). It is generally assumed that in this list of the seven angas the elements are given in order of decreasing importance; and all authorities agree that the svamin is the most important of all.
According to Spellman Anjaria denied that the organic theory of the state existed in ancient India. He held that since the state was not a moral institution and withheld the liberty of a large segment of the population on the ground that they were inferior, this concept could not properly apply. But he does not agree with this view for these reasons. The organic theory, in the first place, is a functional concept and not an inherently moral one. Secondly, although the two concepts are often confused, it is useful to distinguish the political organization from the morality of society. The Matsya Purana refers to the same organic concept when it says : ‘The king was the root and the subjects were the tree.’ The organic theory of the state was, therefore, certainly known and held in ancient India.
However Mabbett holds a contrary view. There has been some discussion among the modern authorities on the question whether the seven prakritis show the existence of an ‘organic theory of the state. The theory is supported by the traditional analogy between the ‘seven limbs’ (saptanga) and the human body, an analogy implicit indeed in the very term. It is not used by the Arthashastra but other texts, such as Manu, specify that the rajya is seven-limbed. Katnandaka stresses the interdependence of the parts. The king and the people are contributing to each other’s benefit. The same theme is reiterated elsewhere. No doubt the modern state, the polls, can be analysed into certain constituent elements and the king’s rule, rajya can also be analysed into constituent elements; and in each case the elements may be interdependent and lend themselves to the organic analogy. But there is no way of arguing from the interdependence (which may characterize cither notion) to the polis. It begs the question. If the constitucnts named arc constituent with the liberal meaning of rajya, as in fact they are, there is no evidence of the existence of the idea of a constitutional and territorial state.
A different verdict has to be given on the comparison between the Indian ideas and the nineteenth century European theories of the organismic nature of the state, which arose chiefly out of reaction against The prevailing mechanical theories of special contract: According to the
fundamental ideas of this school the state is an organism’ because (1) it is itself the end of its existence; (ii) its component numbers are distributed into functionally differentiated parts, as a result of which parts are not only interdependent and inseparable, but the whole is essential to them; (iii) the state in its origin and development is natural and necessary. “The state is further concerned to be a living organism in the physical sense exhibited by its structure and the nature of its growth, or else in the spiritual sense as manifested in the characteristics of self consciousness, self-determination and ethical nature. We have only imperfect approaches to these ideas in the Indian conception.
The State as a Sacrifice. Spellman explains what he means by this in these words : ‘In India the king was the foundation upon which all religious activities rested. Through him it was possible to obtain the world of gods. Of all those who sacrificed in the land, he was the chief. Just as a priest regulated the details of sacrifice, the king regulated the duties of the people. Thus, the state itself may be considered as a sacrifice. Each part of the state has its particular function and duties in this sacrifice, the purpose of which is a better future life. That the slate and society may be compared to a sacrifice is illustrated in the Satapatha Brahmana in connection with the laying of the bricks of the sacrificial alter.
Now this is only a single (brick). He thus makes the nobility (or the chieftaincy) and (social) distinction to attach to a single (person). And what second (such brick there is) that is its mate, a mate, doubtless, is one half of one’s own self, for when one is with a mate then he is whole and complete: Thus it is laid down for the sake of completeness. With a single formula he lays down bricks, he thereby endows the nobility pre-eminently with power and makes the nobility more powerful than the peasantry. A further passage goes on to relate that in the building of altar fires one keeps in mind social distinctions, the acquisition of power and various degrees of political supremacy and one should perform the sacrifice with a view to ensuring these things.
In considering the state itself as a sacrifice, the duties of the various classes are set down. The classes themselves, we are told in the famous hymn X.90 of the Rigveda, were the result of the sacrifice of Purusa by the gods and Rsis. Manu carries this further. ‘To Brahmanas he assigned teaching and studying (the Veda), sacrificing for their own benefit and for others, giving and accepting (of alms). The Kshatriya he commanded to protect the people, to bestow gifts, to offer sacrifices,
to study (the Veda), and to abstain from attaching himself to sensual pleasures. The Vaishya to tend cattle, to bestow gifts, to offer sacrifices, to study (the Veda), to trade, to lend money, and to cultivate land. One occupation only the lord prescribed to the sudra, to serve meekly even these, other three classes’. While noticing that all three classes have in common the duty of studying the Veda and sacrificing, the important idea from this point of view, is that all classes were assigned certain functions, the total of which would fulfil the grand sacrifice. Indeed, one of the most significant words for the science of government is dandaniti, and this, we are told ‘controls the varnas so as to lead them on to the performance of their duties and, when it is employed by the ruler properly, it makes them desist from adharma. This idea has also been expressed in another work on Nepal. In the Hindu conception of state – just as a priest regulated the details of a sacrifice, the king regulated the duties of the people. Thus the state itself may be considered as a sacrifice. Each part of the state has its particular function and duties in this sacrifice, the purpose of which is better future life. In our own time this sacrificial theory of state taken shape in giving the planned role of the members and bodies of society in the process of development the force of a holy rite. The altar of sacrifice rises tier upon tier as the panchayat. And as Kautilya puts it ‘of a king the religious vow is his readiness to action; satisfactory discharge of his duties is his performance of sacrifice; equal attention to all in the offer of gifts and ablution towards consecration. Thus the state is a sacrifice where the unified duties of all surge in the harmony of the holy flames.
Influence of Religion Concepts on the Policy The influence of dharma was dominant, as the king and the state were required to promote and project dharma of the individuals as well as the varnas. The whole duty of the king was called rajdharma. The coronation ceremony was a religious ceremony, and dharma was regarded as the ultimate and supreme power. It was for this reason that the king was struck by the dharma danda thrice on the occasion of the coronation. Since the violation of dharma was ultimately punishable by God, so the king was accountable to God, On account of the concept of the supremacy of dharma, there could not be the rational development of the rights of the people.
The doctrine of karma also had influence on ancient Indian Polity. Political thinkers regarded it as possible for the sages to pay off their does to the state by transferring one sixth of their punya to it. The king
was expected to perform his duties (dharma) properly, under the three that if he misgoverned, the sin of the crimes of his subjects would visited on him. The common view for all the king as well as the subject – that every person reaps as he sows; an evildoer would have to on hell and undergo sufferings for his evil.deeds.
The theory of the supremacy of the moral order suggested out ideal of a moral state which should have no sinners or thieves ame] its subjects. It was also responsible for the enunciation of the righteous war, dharma-yuddha, which was followed to some ex one stage of our history. The state was to strive for the realisation ? the moral and righteous ideals along with those in the spheres of social and econoniic life. The gospel of Aparigralia is responsible for the ideal of self denial placed before the king. The freedom from taxation than was conceded to pious and poor Brahmanas was due to the view that those who practised Aparigraha should not be made to bear avoidable economic burdens. Altekar concludes that religious and philosophical dogmas did and concepts did not deeply influence the Hindu political thought, practice or institution.